Jonathan M. Richardson

Following a motion concerning prospective and retroactive spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had been awarded interim spousal support of $7,000 per month retroactive to April 1, 2012.

The respondent argued that a prior offer to settle was more favourable than the motion outcome and should affect costs under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the offer was not more favourable because it involved a lower monthly support amount and delayed payment of arrears.

Costs of $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis were therefore awarded to the applicant under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent, the wife of a notorious convicted murderer, intended to commence divorce proceedings and successfully applied for non-publication and sealing orders to protect her privacy and mental health.

Media organizations appealed the orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the Court held that the respondent failed to provide convincing evidence that the orders were necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice, as the psychiatric evidence relied upon was based on unsupported assumptions about media harassment.